Whose is Catholic priest property earned after perpetual vows? The Madras High Court says the religious order’s, and not the priest’s family’s.
Madurai: Six fixed deposits worth Rs 56 lakh, built up by a priest after he joined a religious order, belong to that order and not to his brothers and niece. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court so held, allowing two appeals by the ABVM Society of the Catholic Apostolate (Pallottines). It set aside the succession certificate that the Karur District Court had granted to the late priest’s two brothers and his niece and directed them to return the money to the Society. In the Court’s view, relatives cannot claim such property merely because they are legal heirs [The ABVM Society of the Catholic Apostolate (Pallottines) v. A. Deiva Nayagam and Others].
The common judgment was delivered on October 13, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan wrote it. The Bench found that the Principal District Judge, Karur, had not properly appreciated the legal effect of the priest’s entry into the religious order, and that the trial court also erred in holding simultaneous trials, instead of a joint trial, in the two competing succession petitions.
Civil death, and what it does not mean
The Bench began with the doctrine of civil death, which applies when a person enters a religious order. After reviewing precedent, it set out the governing principles:
“A priest who takes solemn religious vows and enters a religious order is, in the eyes of the Church, regarded as having undergone a “death to the world”, situation in the sense of a civil death… The expression “civil death”, when used in the context of religious renunciation, is not intended to mean that, upon entering a religious order, the person ceases to exist as a juridical or natural person, becomes “dead” in the eye of civil law immediately upon entering a religious order and loses all civil rights for every purpose recognised by law.”
The Court then separated what the priest held before taking vows from what came to him afterwards:
“If the deceased had any right, title or interest in the properties of his family which had accrued to him prior to his entry into the religious order, such pre-existing rights cannot be taken away merely on the ground that he subsequently chose religious life or took religious vows… On the other hand, property acquired by him after entering religious life and finally taking the final vow cannot be treated as his individual property and such acquisitions were to be held for society and automatically vested in the society.”
As for the Indian Succession Act, the Bench said:
“Even though the priest continued to be an Indian Christian as defined under Section 2(d) of the Indian Succession Act, because of his civil death by becoming a member of the Holy Order, the natural heirs mentioned in Sections 41 to 48 of the Indian Succession Act will not be his legal heirs so far as the property acquired by him after entering religious order.”
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Upholds Section 69 Of Indian Succession Act, Revocation Of Wills On Marriage Valid
Order priests and diocesan priests
The relatives had leaned on a Kerala High Court Division Bench decision. The Bench distinguished it, observing that the case concerned a diocesan priest and property he received under his father’s Will after his ordination. Drawing on Canon 668 and Canon 282 of Canon Law, the Court explained that whatever a member of a religious order acquires through personal labour or on behalf of the institute belongs to the institute, whereas secular or diocesan priests take no vow of poverty and may own and inherit personal property. The Bench added:
“A diocesan priest does not, merely by becoming a priest, assume the same obligations relating to the renunciation of worldly possessions that arise upon entry into a religious order and the undertaking of the corresponding perpetual vows.”
The Court held that the Society was entitled to property acquired after the priest entered the order, and noted that property received by inheritance or intestate succession from his family cannot, merely on that account, be treated as the Society’s. What decided the matter was that the deposits were acquired after he had become a priest and parish priest under the Society:
“The legal consequence of such acquisition must therefore be determined in the light of the religious obligations undertaken by him and the institutional character in which those properties were acquired, rather than merely by the fact that the title documents stood in his individual name.”
A handwritten undertaking, not a Will
The Society had also relied on a handwritten document dated July 2, 1988, which said that everything the priest acquired during his tenure and service as a priest would belong to the Society. The High Court accepted that, since the document was not attested and no attesting witness was examined, it could not be proved as a Will. That did not make it irrelevant, the Bench held. It chose to read the paper “not as an unproved Will, but as a written declaration and undertaking” showing the priest’s obligations to the Society on entering religious life.
How the dispute arose
The case concerned Rev. Father Devakumar Arulanantham, ordained a priest of the Society on May 15, 1989, who served as a parish priest at various places, including Salem. On October 10, 2017, Rs 56 lakh was placed in six fixed deposits at the State Bank of India, Kulithalai Branch, Karur District. He died on February 24, 2018 at a hospital in Bengaluru. According to the Society, it spent Rs 9,89,998 on his treatment and about Rs 1,50,000 on his funeral.
His two brothers and the daughter of his late sister filed S.O.P. No. 6 of 2019 before the Principal District Judge, Karur, seeking a succession certificate for the deposits as his legal heirs. The Society filed S.O.P. No. 30 of 2019 and claimed the money on the strength of the priest’s religious vows and the 1988 document. On September 18, 2024 the District Judge allowed the relatives’ petition and dismissed the Society’s, and the Society appealed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Scripture cited, but not as law
The Court recorded that the priest’s brother had admitted in evidence that, once a person becomes a priest, whatever he acquires belongs to the Church. It found the relatives’ claim inconsistent with the principles of the faith they professed, and referred to Matthew 6:24 and the First Epistle to Timothy, observing that “The teaching of Christ that no person can serve both God and money admits of no institutional exception.” On restitution, it invoked Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure and referred to the commandment “You shall not steal.” It made clear, however, that it was “not, however, applying the aforesaid religious or moral writings as a source of legal authority”, and that the enforceable obligation flowed from the law of restitution.
Return the money in a month, or pay 9% interest
Both appeals were allowed, the District Judge’s order of September 18, 2024 was set aside, and the Society’s petition was allowed. Since the relatives had already received the deposit amounts while the appeals were pending, the Bench directed:
“In view of the finding rendered above, they are directed to remit the amount so received to the APVM Society within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, without interest. In the event of failure on the part of respondents 1 to 3 to remit the said amount within the aforesaid period of one month, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this judgment until the date of actual payment.”
What the judgment changes
The ruling offers a test for disputes over property held in the name of Catholic clergy. Courts must look at the priest’s religious status, the vows he took and where the property came from, and not only at whose name is on the title. Property that a member of a religious order acquires after perpetual vows goes to the order, while property he held before joining, or inherited from his family, does not automatically pass to it. The line between religious-order priests and diocesan priests is likely to guide future succession disputes between congregations and clergy families across Tamil Nadu.
Case Title: The ABVM Society of the Catholic Apostolate (Pallottines) v. A. Deiva Nayagam and Others
Case No.: C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 560 and 623 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD) No. 6914 of 2026
Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
Date: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Senior Counsel S. Subbiah for Advocate P. Jessi Jeeva Priya, for the Appellant Society; Advocate D. Sadiq Raja for Advocate P.R. Prithiviraj, for Respondents 1 to 3; Advocate S. Anwar Sameen, for Respondent 4 (State Bank of India)